The Photography Thread

[NikF]

I'd like to contribute something, but I'm not sure what, exactly. So I was thinking maybe if I post a shot or two once in a while with short story or anecdote attached, perhaps it could be interesting to some. And with that in mind...

...the best thing I can say about this shot is that it illustrates the value of having a medium grey background paper/backdrop around. Put enough light on it and it'll go white. Or take the opposite approach and it will go black.



Having said that, it also shows the value of makeup/light/long lens. And to put that in some perspective, here's the same model (my partner) without the makeup/light/lens in the early hours of the morning at the airport on her way to what was (I think) Copenhagen fashion week to appear on the catwalk.



She's so much taller than me that I had to stand on her suitcase to get that...

[aligreto]

Great work guys, one and all. I am getting worried; your standards are definitely rising!!

[NikF]

Just to add to my previous post about blowing out the background; both you and the model need to concentrate and remember where you stashed the lights, otherwise...

[North Star]

I'd like to contribute something, but I'm not sure what, exactly. So I was thinking maybe if I post a shot or two once in a while with short story or anecdote attached, perhaps it could be interesting to some.

Sounds like a terrific plan.

And with that in mind...

...the best thing I can say about this shot is that it illustrates the value of having a medium grey background paper/backdrop around. Put enough light on it and it'll go white. Or take the opposite approach and it will go black.

Having said that, it also shows the value of makeup/light/long lens. And to put that in some perspective, here's the same model (my partner) without the makeup/light/lens in the early hours of the morning at the airport on her way to what was (I think) Copenhagen fashion week to appear on the catwalk.

She's so much taller than me that I had to stand on her suitcase to get that...

A very nice pair of very different portraits, and indeed displaying the value of makeup, studio lighting/environment.

[NikF]

Sounds like a terrific plan. :)A very nice pair of very different portraits, and indeed displaying the value of makeup, studio lighting/environment.

Thanks, very kind of you to say so.

[North Star]

I realise I'm probably preaching to the converted, but your reply shows your approach to a shot is one of honesty. For a number of reasons that's so valuable.

I wouldn't mind a clarification of what you mean by honesty in this context, and the numerous reasons it's valuable, now that we have a discussion going here.

[NikF]

I wouldn't mind a clarification of what you mean by honesty in this context, and the numerous reasons it's valuable, now that we have a discussion going here.

Sure, I'll try and explain. But expressing myself in words really isn't my forte.
You said "...Seeking to apply the 'rule of thirds' (which is not quite what you're writing about, I know) is a slippery slope to generic blandness, though. I'll rather stick to elements and principals of design, and utilizing them as best fits each photograph. " - a lot of the time it's possible to 'phone it in' and absolutely no one would notice, especially when you know the rules, know how to make an exposure etc. However, taking the simple truths - those existing elements and principals of design you speak of - and working with them in a way that's real, is a sign of honesty.

When you're shooting a still life, chances are that almost every variation on that theme has been shot before. In fact, over the last few hundred years it has probably been depicted by artists in every way possible. Or you arrive to photograph a landscape and there are another couple of dudes there, cameras on tripods, focal lengths all the same, framing and exposing the scene in the same way. What's left for you? How do you approach it with something even faintly resembling originality? All you can do is do it with honesty. 'Well, on Flickr/Tumblr/Facebook/Smugmug people are all taking similar approaches' - all applying the same rules from textbooks open at the same page.  That's fine. And that's their business. Your 'vision' should be your own, regardless of theirs. The comment from the teenage photographer on Flickr 'he was taught to never place the horizon in the middle' - that's good for him. But it's not a universal law.

Always be honest. Even now when viewing something I've shot I stop and ask myself "Is this what I really wanted?" because every element of the shot is my decision, simply because it's my photo. Always be honest. Your work can be fairly (or unfairly!) critiqued by all, but the one aspect they can never question is the honesty it contains within. It's yours.

[Sergeant Rock]

She's so much taller than me that I had to stand on her suitcase to get that...

I'm impressed. I was an idiot about height in my youth...threw away several opportunities because the women were taller than me. Later in life I expressed my regret in a poem (part of a much longer "magnum opus"). The quote is from John Berryman:

   "She was keen on me but too tall for my then romantic image"

   And I remember, see again from thirty years, tall Barb & Ann,
   Barb's playground pose & seductive debate;
   Ann's earth-mother body and wifely virtues' list--giantesses both,
   keen on me but rejected for statuesque sin. See, across the field,
   stunning Mary Jo, with her blazing braid of antique hair,
   just an inch--an inch!--too tall for romantic consideration.
   All I can do now is shake my touch of grey in disbelief...

Sarge

[North Star]

Sure, I'll try and explain. But expressing myself in words really isn't my forte.
You said "...Seeking to apply the 'rule of thirds' (which is not quite what you're writing about, I know) is a slippery slope to generic blandness, though. I'll rather stick to elements and principals of design, and utilizing them as best fits each photograph. " - a lot of the time it's possible to 'phone it in' and absolutely no one would notice, especially when you know the rules, know how to make an exposure etc. However, taking the simple truths - those existing elements and principals of design you speak of - and working with them in a way that's real, is a sign of honesty.

Understood.

When you're shooting a still life, chances are that almost every variation on that theme has been shot before. In fact, over the last few hundred years it has probably been depicted by artists in every way possible. Or you arrive to photograph a landscape and there are another couple of dudes there, cameras on tripods, focal lengths all the same, framing and exposing the scene in the same way. What's left for you? How do you approach it with something even faintly resembling originality? All you can do is do it with honesty. 'Well, on Flickr/Tumblr/Facebook/Smugmug people are all taking similar approaches' - all applying the same rules from textbooks open at the same page.  That's fine. And that's their business. Your 'vision' should be your own, regardless of theirs. The comment from the teenage photographer on Flickr 'he was taught to never place the horizon in the middle' - that's good for him. But it's not a universal law.

Hear, hear. Some travel to exotic places in order to photograph something 'new' or 'original'. I like traveling as much as the next cliché, but I think I value more seeing something new in familiar things, photographing something you know intimately. Even more intimately after one has begun to photograph it, of course.

Always be honest. Even now when viewing something I've shot I stop and ask myself "Is this what I really wanted?" because every element of the shot is my decision, simply because it's my photo. Always be honest. Your work can be fairly (or unfairly!) critiqued by all, but the one aspect they can never question is the honesty it contains within. It's yours.

Yes. For me, that sometimes happens straight after clicking the shutter, checking the preview. Also after photographing of course, and before moving the files to computer for editing, and during/after editing. If a photo is good (and fits as a part of set) despite being different from what I wanted when pressing the shutter, I don't have a problem - apart from not having the photo I wanted, perhaps.

[NikF]

I'm impressed. I was an idiot about height in my youth...threw away several opportunities because the women were taller than me. Later in life I expressed my regret in a poem (part of a much longer "magnum opus"). The quote is from John Berryman:

   "She was keen on me but too tall for my then romantic image"

   And I remember, see again from thirty years, tall Barb & Ann,
   Barb's playground pose & seductive debate;
   Ann's earth-mother body and wifely virtues' list--giantesses both,
   keen on me but rejected for statuesque sin. See, across the field,
   stunning Mary Jo, with her blazing braid of antique hair,
   just an inch--an inch!--too tall for romantic consideration.
   All I can do now is shake my touch of grey in disbelief...

Sarge

That's really good stuff. Thanks for posting it.

Yeah, I was on her suitcase. In her bare feet she's over 5' 9". She always wears (at least) three inch heels. When that's combined with how she carries herself and her poise, she's easily over 6' 0". And I'm 5' 8". But it's not an issue for us, despite the fact we get looks in the street. Then again, part of that's down to the age difference. People don't approve. Meanwhile, in other news, life is good.

[NikF]

Understood.Hear, hear. Some travel to exotic places in order to photograph something 'new' or 'original'. I like traveling as much as the next cliché, but I think I value more seeing something new in familiar things, photographing something you know intimately. Even more intimately after one has begun to photograph it, of course.Yes. For me, that sometimes happens straight after clicking the shutter, checking the preview. Also after photographing of course, and before moving the files to computer for editing, and during/after editing. If a photo is good (and fits as a part of set) despite being different from what I wanted when pressing the shutter, I don't have a problem - apart from not having the photo I wanted, perhaps.

Glad you understand what I was trying to say.

See, for some people it's easier to see something new by travelling than it is to see something new within the familiar. The latter takes (amongst other things) time and patience on the road of learning to see. And that's not instant enough for some.
But yes, it's all yours from the moment of the first preconceived idea, down to the ongoing contemplation of what your subject reveals. It's your vision and choices and honesty.

[aligreto]

Always be honest. Even now when viewing something I've shot I stop and ask myself "Is this what I really wanted?" because every element of the shot is my decision, simply because it's my photo. Always be honest. Your work can be fairly (or unfairly!) critiqued by all, but the one aspect they can never question is the honesty it contains within. It's yours.

Your words ring very true irrespective of the genre of Art under discussion; honesty and integrity will always shine true.

[aligreto]

Some travel to exotic places in order to photograph something 'new' or 'original'. I like traveling as much as the next cliché, but I think I value more seeing something new in familiar things, photographing something you know intimately. Even more intimately after one has begun to photograph it, of course.

Another very valid point. Do what you know and you will always, most likely, do it better than what is unfamiliar to you.

[Sergeant Rock]

We had a bottle of Chianti for dinner, and a bottle of Grauburgunder (pinot gris) for dessert, so I'm not in much shape to comment critically or wisely on your photos right now. I will say the first is the superior image (of course). But the second shows a woman who is incredibly, and naturally beautiful sans makeup and photographic trappings. A gorgeous, natural woman (ref: another thread) who doesn't need any help from anyone behind the camera. Tomorrow I'll have more to say...probably.

Sarge

[NikF]

Well, that's kind of you to say so and I'll pass on the compliment to her. Thanks.

[North Star]

Another one from the same set

[NikF]

Another one from the same set

I don't think there's always value in liking something more/less than something else - it's not a competition - but I did find the previous shot you posted from this set more interesting. However, I do find this one interesting in a different way. Approaching elements in how their contrasting shapes and forms are arranged is obviously an option. Adding to that through showing depth brings more. A step further (like here) hints at textures.

It's kind of like how I've seen so many good (and some great) shots of trees that really show how tall and spreading or even dominant they can be in a landscape. But I rarely see a photo that impresses on me how a tree feels to touch - of how rough the bark is or how smooth the leaves. How do you do that? One way is by incorporating contrasts not in light or tone or colour, but in textures. And your photo appears to me as a beginning of that approach.

[North Star]

I don't think there's always value in liking something more/less than something else - it's not a competition - but I did find the previous shot you posted from this set more interesting. However, I do find this one interesting in a different way. Approaching elements in how their contrasting shapes and forms are arranged is obviously an option. Adding to that through showing depth brings more. A step further (like here) hints at textures.

It's kind of like how I've seen so many good (and some great) shots of trees that really show how tall and spreading or even dominant they can be in a landscape. But I rarely see a photo that impresses on me how a tree feels to touch - of how rough the bark is or how smooth the leaves. How do you do that? One way is by incorporating contrasts not in light or tone or colour, but in textures. And your photo appears to me as a beginning of that approach.

Thanks. Contrasting textures are definitely something I'm interested in, and tree bark (and leaves & needles) is certainly an aspect of that. Perhaps that's why I think that tomato is the dullest fruit (visually speaking), to paraphrase Eliot. . .

[NikF]

I don't like excuses at all. However I'm going to point out that this image is taken from a negative taped to the window and photographed, then inverted in Photoshop. As a result all the shadow detail is lost and the highlights are blown. If that wasn't the case then no matter where you look you'd see a feast of circles, squares, triangles, rectangles, semicircles and other geometric stuff.
And I didn't set out to shoot this. It's near the old studio. Whenever I take a break I pick up the first film camera that comes to hand and take a walk. Sometimes I see a photo, but usually I don't.

[North Star]

I don't like excuses at all. However I'm going to point out that this image is taken from a negative taped to the window and photographed, then inverted in Photoshop. As a result all the shadow detail is lost and the highlights are blown. If that wasn't the case then no matter where you look you'd see a feast of circles, squares, triangles, rectangles, semicircles and other geometric stuff.
And I didn't set out to shoot this. It's near the old studio. Whenever I take a break I pick up the first film camera that comes to hand and take a walk. Sometimes I see a photo, but usually I don't.

A shame indeed. An interesting photo nonetheless, with the framing & several archways. Atget would certainly have photographed this.